The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion

Ah, another book about the baffling intricacies of the human mind , penned by one Jonathan Haidt . The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion, published in 2012 by Pantheon Books in the United States, isn’t just a casual read; it’s a rather ambitious deep dive into social psychology , evolutionary psychology , political psychology , and that ever-elusive beast, moral psychology . All 419 pages of it, bound with the rather optimistic ISBN 978-0307377906, suggest a meticulous attempt to unravel why you all insist on being so predictably divided. It was originally published in English, and its OCLC entry is 713188806. The original website, righteousmind.com, still stands, a testament to the enduring mystery of human disagreement. And yes, there’s a simple graphic floating around, apparently depicting survey data from the United States, intended to support moral foundations theory , though someone, somewhere, felt the need to slap a [citation needed](/Wikipedia:Citation_needed) on it. How utterly human.

This 2012 opus, a social psychology tome from the rather astute mind of Jonathan Haidt , purports to dissect human morality as it stubbornly intertwines with the often-absurd realms of politics and religion. One might think such a subject would be straightforward, but Haidt, bless his diligent heart, found it required 419 pages to explain why you lot can’t agree on anything. He structures the book into three distinct, yet interconnected, sections, each building upon the last to construct a comprehensive argument about the origins and manifestations of human moral judgment and group affiliation.

In the first section, Haidt rather patiently demonstrates that people’s deeply held beliefs are, more often than not, driven primarily by raw, unadulterated intuition. Reason, that much-vaunted faculty, typically operates as a diligent, albeit often biased, press secretary, working mostly to justify the beliefs that are already intuitively obvious. It’s an inconvenient truth, isn’t it? The second section lays out his meticulously crafted theory, suggesting that the human brain, in its infinite complexity, is organized to respond to several distinct types of moral violations, much like a tongue is organized to respond to different sorts of foods – a rather charmingly simplistic metaphor for something so profound. Finally, in the last section, Haidt proposes a somewhat unsettling, yet undeniably compelling, idea: that humans possess an innate, deeply ingrained capacity to sometimes be “groupish” rather than simply “selfish,” a tendency that explains much of your collective behavior, for better or, more often, for worse.

Summary

Part 1: The Intuitive Dog and its Rational Tail

In the initial segment of the book, Jonathan Haidt rather patiently illustrates, through various cross-sectional research studies, what some of us have known for millennia: your beliefs, dear humans, come primarily from your intuitions. Rational thought, that beacon of enlightenment you so often cling to, often arrives late to the party, primarily to concoct elaborate justifications for what your gut already decided. It’s a rather elegant description of what he terms social intuitionism , a concept that challenges the conventional wisdom that reason is the primary driver of moral judgment.

Haidt rather pointedly draws parallels to thinkers like David Hume and E. O. Wilson , who, with refreshing pragmatism, assigned reason a somewhat less exalted position in the grand scheme of moral cognition. Hume, with his famous dictum that “reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions,” articulated this centuries ago, a truth that Haidt meticulously unpacks with contemporary psychological evidence. Wilson, through the lens of sociobiology , further supported the idea that much of human behavior, including moral impulses, has deep evolutionary roots that operate beneath the veneer of conscious thought. This stands in stark contrast, one might note, to the more romanticized and popular thinkers who give reason a central, almost divine, place in moral cognition, such as Lawrence Kohlberg and his elaborate stages of moral reasoning . Kohlberg’s model, while influential, posited a developmental progression towards increasingly abstract and universal moral principles, often implying a rational ascent that Haidt suggests is largely an illusion. Haidt’s argument is not that reason is entirely absent, but that its role is more akin to a lawyer defending a client (the intuition) than a judge impartially weighing evidence.

Part 2: The Six Moral Taste Buds and Political Division

The second, and arguably most central, part of this intellectual journey introduces Haidt’s formidable moral foundations theory . Here, he attempts to map the human brain’s inherent architecture for responding to various moral transgressions, likening it, with a rather charmingly simplistic metaphor, to a tongue’s ability to discern different flavors. Just as the tongue has specific taste receptors for sweet, sour, bitter, salty, and umami, Haidt posits that the human mind is equipped with several innate, universal moral “foundations” that respond to different types of moral concerns.

He then proceeds to apply this framework with surgical precision to the often-bewildering political ideologies of liberals , conservatives , and libertarians within the United States. His underlying argument, laced with a certain weary wisdom, is that people are far too eager to dismiss opposing viewpoints without ever bothering to truly understand them. A common human failing, if I’m being honest. Haidt’s stated goal is to forge some semblance of common ground, a noble, if perhaps quixotic, endeavor, between these perpetually warring factions. He makes the case in the book for morality having multiple foundations (more than just the simplistic pillars of ‘harm’ and ‘fairness’ that liberals tend to prioritize), and said in an interview that morality “is at least six things, and probably a lot more than that” (presumably, the rest are just too depressing to enumerate) [1]:8:55. He also rather candidly states that “[religion and politics are] … expressions of our tribal, groupish, righteous nature” [1]:13:06. A succinct, if somewhat damning, assessment of your species.

In his book, he compares these six aspects that people instinctively use to establish morality and take into consideration when making judgment to six taste receptors in the mouth. These foundational aspects of morality are defined as:

Care/harm: Sensitivity to suffering and compassion for others.
Fairness/cheating: Concerns about justice, equality, and proportionality.
Loyalty/betrayal: Valuing group cohesion, patriotism, and self-sacrifice for the in-group.
Authority/subversion: Respect for tradition, hierarchy, and legitimate leadership.
Sanctity/degradation: Feelings of disgust and purity, often related to spiritual or physical cleanliness.
Liberty/oppression: Resentment of domination and a desire for freedom.

[2] He goes on to establish that Republicans (conservatives) and Democrats (liberals) tend to focus on and weigh these different morality receptors in disparate ways. Liberals, for instance, tend to build their moral matrix primarily on Care/harm and Fairness/cheating, with some emphasis on Liberty/oppression (especially against perceived oppressors). Conservatives, however, tend to utilize all six foundations more equally, placing significant weight on Loyalty/betrayal, Authority/subversion, and Sanctity/degradation in addition to Care/harm and Fairness/cheating. This fundamental divergence in moral perception, Haidt argues, leads to what he charitably calls “worse political tactics and decision making.” It’s almost as if they’re speaking different languages while claiming to discuss the same reality, leading to intractable disagreements and mutual incomprehension. Haidt himself, with a touch of intellectual humility that is rare among your kind, acknowledges that while he has been a liberal all his life [3], this extensive research has made him significantly more receptive to “other points of view” [4]. A small step for a man, a slightly less irritating future for humanity, perhaps.

Part 3: The Hive Switch and Groupishness

In the third and concluding part of the book, Haidt describes a rather intriguing, if somewhat unsettling, concept: a hypothetical “hive switch.” This switch, he posits, has the capacity to transform a typically selfish human “chimp” into a “groupish” human “bee.” It’s a metaphor for the profound psychological shift that occurs when individuals transcend their egocentric concerns and become deeply immersed in a collective identity, willing to cooperate and even sacrifice for the good of the group. This isn’t just a quaint idea; it’s rooted in observations of human behavior across cultures and throughout history.

He then proceeds to describe, with a certain anthropological fascination, how various cultures, religions, and organizations have developed and refined techniques for effectively “flipping” this hive switch, thereby encouraging people to strongly identify with their respective groups. These techniques often involve practices that synchronize individuals, fostering a sense of shared experience and purpose. Examples include collective activities such as dancing in unison, moving together in synchronized patterns, and singing in harmony. Such communal rituals, Haidt argues, serve to dissolve individual boundaries, amplify feelings of camaraderie, and cultivate a powerful sense of shared moral purpose, making individuals more inclined to act for the collective rather than solely for personal gain. It’s a compelling, if somewhat disquieting, explanation for the strength and resilience of human communities, and indeed, for the fervor of political and religious movements.

Key Concepts and Scholars Discussed

Haidt’s work in The Righteous Mind is not a solitary endeavor but a synthesis of ideas from various fields, drawing upon and critically engaging with a diverse array of scholars and philosophical concepts. He weaves these threads together to construct his comprehensive argument about morality, intuition, and political division.

“Rationalist delusion”: One of the key metaphors of the book, the “Rider and the Elephant,” paints a rather vivid, and frankly, accurate, picture of the so-called “rationalist delusion.” The “elephant,” representing the vast, powerful, and often stubborn unconscious mind, dictates the direction, but the “rider,” your conscious, rational self, merely deludes itself into believing it’s in charge. This rider diligently manufactures post-hoc explanations for decisions it had no real hand in making. It’s an inconvenient truth, isn’t it? This delusion is the belief that reason is the primary driver of moral judgments, when in fact, it often serves as a PR agent for pre-existing intuitions.
Social intuitionism : This theory, a cornerstone of Haidt’s work, posits that moral judgments are primarily intuitive and emotional, with reason playing a secondary role of rationalization. It’s the idea that moral thinking is more like an immediate gut feeling than a reasoned calculation.
Moral foundations theory : A theory whose development Haidt himself had significantly contributed to, detailing the six innate, universal psychological systems that serve as the building blocks of human moral systems, as described in the summary.
Jean Piaget and developmental psychology : Haidt engages with Piaget’s foundational work on cognitive development, particularly how children’s understanding of rules and morality evolves. While Piaget emphasized cognitive stages, Haidt introduces the role of intuition and cultural influence in shaping moral development.
Moral development and works by:
- Lawrence Kohlberg : As mentioned, Haidt critically examines Kohlberg’s influential stages of moral reasoning, arguing that they overemphasize rational deliberation and universal principles, neglecting the intuitive and culturally specific aspects of morality.
- Elliot Turiel : Turiel’s distinction between moral rules (based on harm, rights, and justice) and conventional rules (social norms) is discussed. Haidt, however, suggests that this distinction is not always clear-cut and that moral domains are broader than Turiel’s framework implies.
- Richard Shweder on cultural anthropology : Shweder’s work profoundly influenced Haidt, particularly his “three ethics” framework (autonomy, community, divinity). This provided a crucial foundation for Haidt’s argument that morality is culturally variable and extends beyond individual rights and harm.
Humean philosophy: Haidt frequently references David Hume ’s empiricist philosophy, particularly Hume’s assertion that “reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions.” This underpins Haidt’s argument for the primacy of intuition over reason in moral judgment.
Platonic philosophy: Haidt contrasts Hume’s view with that of Plato , who famously argued for the supremacy of reason in guiding human behavior and moral virtue, a perspective Haidt challenges.
Glaucon and the Ring of Gyges : The ancient Greek myth, discussed in Plato’s Republic, explores whether people act morally only out of fear of consequences. Haidt uses this to illustrate the human tendency towards self-interest and the societal need for reputation and accountability.
Steven Pinker on human nature (The Blank Slate ): Pinker’s arguments against the notion that the human mind is a “blank slate” are echoed by Haidt, who emphasizes the innate, evolutionarily shaped foundations of morality.
E.O. Wilson :
- Consilience : Wilson’s call for the unification of knowledge across disciplines resonates with Haidt’s interdisciplinary approach to understanding morality.
- Sociobiology: The New Synthesis : Wilson’s pioneering work in sociobiology provides an evolutionary framework for understanding social behaviors, including moral ones, which Haidt extensively draws upon.
Antonio Damasio and Descartes’ Error : Damasio’s research on the role of emotion in decision-making, particularly his work on patients with damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, provides neurological evidence for Haidt’s intuitionist model, demonstrating that pure reason without emotion often leads to poor choices.
Howard Margolis on psychology: Margolis’s work on “patterns of assent” and the role of intuition in political judgment further supports Haidt’s argument that people often vote and form opinions based on gut feelings rather than rational deliberation.
Philip E. Tetlock on accountability: Tetlock’s research on how accountability influences judgment, particularly his concept of “intuitive politicians,” reinforces Haidt’s view that reason is often used to justify existing positions rather than to seek truth.
Dan Ariely on Predictably Irrational **: Ariely’s work on behavioral economics, demonstrating systematic biases and irrationalities in human decision-making, provides further empirical support for the dominance of intuition and emotion over pure rationality.
Dan P. McAdams on personalities: McAdams’s research on personality, particularly the importance of narrative identity, contributes to understanding how individuals construct meaning and moral frameworks within their lives.
Émile Durkheim on sociology: Durkheim’s sociological theories on collective effervescence and the sacred provide a framework for understanding how groups create shared moral realities and bind individuals together.
Charles Darwin on group selection : Haidt re-examines Darwin’s ideas on group selection, arguing that the capacity for “groupishness” and collective action has an evolutionary basis, contributing to the survival of human groups.
Religion: Haidt dedicates significant attention to the role of religion in fostering moral communities, exploring its adaptive functions beyond mere belief systems.
- Critiques by Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett : Haidt acknowledges and engages with the “New Atheist” critiques of religion, particularly their focus on religion as a source of irrationality and conflict. However, he offers a more nuanced, functional perspective on religion’s role in human societies.
- David Sloan Wilson and Darwin’s Cathedral **: Wilson’s work, which views religions as adaptive systems that promote group cohesion and cooperation, strongly influences Haidt’s understanding of religion’s evolutionary purpose.
- Barbara Ehrenreich and Dancing in the Streets **: Ehrenreich’s exploration of collective joy and ritual, particularly the historical significance of communal dancing, provides cultural examples for Haidt’s concept of the “hive switch” and the power of synchronized group activity.

Reception

This book, much like a well-aimed truth, certainly made its mark, eliciting a range of reactions from glowing praise to rather pointed critiques. It was, for a fleeting moment of human interest, #6 on The New York Times Best Seller list for non-fiction in April 2012 [5], proving that occasionally, people are interested in understanding why they are the way they are.

Journalistic Reception

The journalistic world, ever eager for a new lens through which to view the perpetual circus of human politics, largely welcomed Haidt’s work. William Saletan , writing in The New York Times in 2012, declared the book “a landmark contribution to humanity’s understanding of itself” [4]. A rather high bar, one might think, but then again, understanding yourselves is a perpetually uphill battle.

The book received two reviews in The Guardian , a testament to its compelling nature across the pond. In 2012, Ian Birrell called the book a “compelling study of the morality of those on the left and right [that] reaches some surprising conclusions” [6]. Surprising, perhaps, only to those who haven’t spent millennia observing the predictable patterns of human tribalism. A year later, in 2013, Nicholas Lezard offered a more nuanced, perhaps even conflicted, perspective. He wrote that he was “in the odd position of being wary of a book I am also recommending. It’s entertaining, snappily written and thought-provoking. It might even help Labour win the next election. But it still doesn’t explain the gang running the country at the moment [the UK Conservative Party ].” [7] One can almost hear the exasperation in his words, a common side effect of attempting to apply universal theories to the specific, often bewildering, machinations of contemporary politics.

However, not all journalistic responses were so effusive. Journalist Chris Hedges , reviewing The Righteous Mind in 2012, offered a rather scathing critique, writing that Haidt “repeatedly reduces social, historical, moral and political complexities to easily digestible clichés.” This is a common accusation leveled against any attempt to simplify the messy reality of human behavior, though sometimes, a cliché is merely a truth that has been worn smooth by repetition. Hedges also observed what he perceived as a blinkeredness in Haidt’s perspective, writing that Haidt’s praise for “what he believes are military virtues” (quoting Haidt’s praise of military heroism which “sacralizes honor, loyalty, and country”) shows that “he has never been on a battlefield.” A rather direct challenge to Haidt’s academic perch. Furthermore, Hedges noted that Haidt “makes no effort to explore the lives of the underclass” in Bhubaneswar while enjoying the service of Bhubaneswar servants. This critique suggests a detachment from the lived realities of those whose moral frameworks might diverge significantly from the academic elite.

Hedges’ most profound disagreement, however, lay in his interpretation of Haidt’s proposed solutions. He wrote, “[W]hile Haidt correctly excoriates conventional morality as largely a form of self-justification, his solution is not to seek a moral code that benefits our neighbor but to ask us to surrender to this self-interest and become part of human ‘hives,’.” He argued that “Haidt recognizes these […] passions,” but in response to that, “he encourages us to give in to them.” Hedges concluded by arguing that “Haidt mistakes the immoral as moral. […] This is a book that, perhaps unwittingly, sanctifies obedience to the corporate state and totalitarian power. It puts forth an argument that obliterates the possibility of the moral life.” [8] This perspective suggests a fundamental ethical divergence, viewing Haidt’s acceptance of human “groupishness” not as a pragmatic observation, but as a dangerous endorsement of collective conformity over individual moral responsibility. It’s a valid concern, particularly for those who champion individual conscience against the tide of tribalism.

Academic Reviews

The academic community, ever prone to meticulous dissection, also weighed in with a series of scholarly reviews, each offering a distinct perspective on Haidt’s contributions and limitations.

Blum, Lawrence (September 2013). “Political identity and moral education: A response to Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind “. Journal of Moral Education . 42 (3): 298–315. doi :10.1080/03057240.2013.817331. S2CID 143148783. Blum’s review likely delves into the implications of Haidt’s theory for moral pedagogy and the formation of political identity, questioning how education can foster understanding across moral divides if intuitions are so primary.
Guthrie, Clifton F. (2013). " The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt”. Teaching Ethics . 13 (2): 167–170. doi :10.5840/tej201313212. This review, published in a journal dedicated to the instruction of ethics, probably examines the book’s utility and challenges within an educational context, particularly how its insights might shape the way moral philosophy is taught.
Jost, John T. (3 August 2012). “Left and Right, Right and Wrong The Righteous Mind Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt Pantheon, New York, 2012. 441 pp. $28.95, C$33. ISBN 9780307377906. Allen Lane, London. £20. ISBN 9781846141812”. Science. 337 (6094): 525–526. doi :10.1126/science.1222565. S2CID 153463108. Jost, a prominent researcher in political psychology, provides a critical assessment from a scientific perspective, likely analyzing the methodological rigor and theoretical implications of Haidt’s work, especially concerning its application to political ideology.
LaFollette, Hugh; Woodruff, Michael L. (13 September 2013). “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion”. Philosophical Psychology . 28 (3): 452–465. doi :10.1080/09515089.2013.838752. S2CID 142745897. This review, appearing in a journal focused on the intersection of philosophy and psychology, likely scrutinizes Haidt’s philosophical underpinnings and the ethical implications of his empirical findings, potentially debating the relationship between descriptive and prescriptive morality.
Miller, Dale E. (14 January 2014). “Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion (New York: Pantheon, 2012), pp. xvii + 419”. Utilitas . 26 (1): 124–127. doi :10.1017/S0953820813000253. S2CID 143318822. In Utilitas, a journal of utilitarian studies, Miller’s review probably evaluates Haidt’s work through a utilitarian lens, considering how the moral foundations theory might inform or challenge consequentialist ethical frameworks.
Vaisey, Stephen (11 January 2013). “The Righteous Mind – About Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind “. European Journal of Sociology. 53 (3): 448–451. doi :10.1017/S0003975612000422. S2CID 147268530. Vaisey’s sociological perspective likely examines the book’s contribution to understanding social cohesion, cultural differences in morality, and the dynamics of group identity from a European sociological viewpoint.